PERLMUTTER et al v. TRINA & JEFFREY VARONE et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 5/6/22. 5/6/22 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE; E-MAILED.(amas)

Case 2:21-cv-05018-RBS Document 32 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PERLMUTTER, ET AL.
v.
TRINA & JEFFREY VARONE, ET AL.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 21-5018

MEMORANDUM
SURRICK, J.

MAY 6, 2022

Presently before the Court is the Government’s Motion for Pre-Filing Injunction (ECF
No. 24) and Plaintiffs’ response in opposition thereto (ECF No. 27). For the following reasons,
the Government’s Motion will be granted as to all Defendants.
I.

BACKGROUND
It appears that Plaintiffs’ litigation strategy is: if at first you don’t succeed, then try a

new court. Indeed, there have been many prior decisions on the same claims now before this
Court. 1 After each adverse outcome, Plaintiffs make unsupported accusations of judicial

1

“Suffice to say that Perlmutter has litigated unsuccessfully the same claims for more than a
decade, in seven different lawsuits filed in federal and state courts.” Dawn Perlmutter, et al. v.
Trina Varone, et al., No. 19-3402, ECF No. 56 at 2 (D. Md. Oct. 26, 2021). See also Perlmutter
v. Varone, No. 1652 Sept. Term 2019, 2020 WL 6707829, at *1-2 (Md. Spec. App. Nov. 16,
2020) (noting that Court of Special Appeals of Maryland previously rejected Plaintiffs’
allegations that the Varones committed fraud with respect to Ms. Sutton’s will and documenting
the litigation history) (citing Perlmutter v. Varone, No. 2127 Sept. Term 2016, at *3-5 (Md.
Spec. App. March 5, 2018)). These lawsuits include (i) cases in Montgomery County, Maryland:
Dawn Perlmutter v. Trina Varone, No. 343697-V (2011) and Dawn Perlmutter v. Scott
Perlmutter, Case No. 422551-V (2016); (ii) in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.:
Dawn Perlmutter, et al. v. Trina and Jeffrey Varone, et al., 59 F. Supp. 3d 107 (D.D.C. 2014);
(iii) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and appeals to the Fourth Circuit:
Perlmutter v. Verone (sic), No. 14-2566, 2015 WL 4757183 at *1-2 (D. Md. Aug. 11, 2015);
Perlmutter v. Varone, 645 F. App’x 249, 250-51 (4th Cir. 2016) (affirming district court’s
decisions to dismiss Perlmutter’s and Bolick’s complaint and deny their motion for
reconsideration); Dawn Perlmutter, et al. v. Trina Varone, et al., No. 19-3402, ECF No. 56 at 1-

Case 2:21-cv-05018-RBS Document 32 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 7

corruption. Plaintiffs continue this approach here, despite being subject to a pre-filing injunction
in state court and being warned of the same by a federal court. Because Plaintiffs have received
numerous decisions on their claims, and because their continued meritless filings consume
valuable judicial resources, the Government’s request for a pre-filing injunction will be granted.
The pre-filing injunction will apply to all Defendants in this case.
This case stems from the probate of decedent Joan Sutton’s will in Maryland. Ms. Sutton
was the mother of Plaintiff Perlmutter and Defendant Trina Varone. Dissatisfied with the
outcome of the probate, Plaintiffs Perlmutter and Bolick have unsuccessfully pursued numerous
challenges in both state and federal courts over the last ten years. See supra n. 1. Within the last
seven months, two federal district courts and one state court have joined all prior tribunals in
finding that Plaintiffs’ claims are meritless. See Dawn Perlmutter, et al. v. Trina Varone, et al.,
No. 19-cv-3402, ECF No. 56 (D. Md. Oct. 26, 2021); Sutton Investments LLC v. Dawn
Perlmutter, et al., No. 21-cv-3226, ECF No. 10 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 2021); Dawn Perlmutter v.
Jeffrey Varone, No. 01609-2020 (Pa. Com. Pl. Ct. Bucks County Oct. 26, 2021).
On February 15, 2022, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause within twenty-one
days as to why their pattern of conduct does not justify a tailored pre-filing injunction. (ECF No.
25.) Plaintiffs responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause on February 22, 2022. (ECF No.
27.)
This will not be the first pre-filing injunction issued against Plaintiffs. See Perlmutter v.
Varone, No. 422551-V, Doc. No. 35 (Montgomery, Md. Circ. Ct. Sept. 22, 2016) (stating that

2 (D. Md. Oct. 26, 2021); Perlmutter v. Varone, 848 F. App’x 148, 149 (4th Cir. 2021)
(affirming district court’s dismissal of Perlmutter’s and Bolick’s complaint and denial of their
motions for reconsideration and recusal); and (iv) in the Common Pleas Court of Bucks County,
Pennsylvania: Dawn Perlmutter v. Trina Varone, No. 01609-2020 (currently on appeal before
the Pennsylvania Superior Court at 2440 EDA 2021).
2

Case 2:21-cv-05018-RBS Document 32 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 7

the court “deems Plaintiffs to be vexatious litigants” and would issue sanctions if Plaintiffs filed
“any motion, petition or proceeding against any of Defendants Trina Varone, Jeffrey
Varone[.]”); see also Perlmutter et al. v. Varone et al., No. 2020-01609 (Ct. Com. Pl. Bucks
county, Apr. 1, 2020) (ordering Plaintiffs’ claims dismissed, and stating, “Plaintiffs are
BARRED from pursuing additional pro se litigation against the Defendants named in this action
raising the same, similar, or related claims without first obtaining leave of Court.”). Plaintiffs
were also warned by a federal district court in Maryland that their conduct would lead to a prefiling injunction. See Perlmutter, No. 19-3402, ECF No. 56 at 2 (D. Md. Oct. 26, 2021) (“[T]his
Court expressly cautions Plaintiffs that if they continue to file similar motions, the Court will be
left with no choice but to enter a prefiling injunction . . .”). One month after that warning,
Plaintiffs filed the case now before this Court.
We previously warned Plaintiffs that their conduct was sanctionable. (ECF No. 10 at 5.)
Plaintiffs responded to our warning by filing a lengthy amended complaint and an additional
motion. (ECF Nos. 13 and 28.) The additional motion was filed after this Court’s Order to
Show Cause as to why we should not issue a pre-filing injunction. (ECF No. 28.)
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, a District Court can enjoin a litigant from

future filings “to preclude abusive, groundless and vexatious litigation.” In re Oliver, 682 F.2d
443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982); see also Matter of Packer Ave. Associates, 884 F.2d 745, 747-48 (3d
Cir. 1989); Chipps v. U.S.D.C. for the M.D. of Pa., 882 F.2d 72, 73 (3d Cir. 1989). Though prefiling injunctions “should be narrowly tailored and sparingly used,” they are an appropriate
remedy for “a litigant who has repeatedly filed complaints alleging claims that have already been
fully litigated.” Matter of Packer Ave. Assocs., 884 F.2d at 746. Pro se litigants are no

3

Case 2:21-cv-05018-RBS Document 32 Filed 05/06/22 Page 4 of 7

exception. In re Oliver, 682 F.2d at 445-46 (finding that the record appeared to justify a
prefiling injunction against a pro se plaintiff, provided that the plaintiff had the opportunity to
oppose the injunction before it was entered); see also Grossberger v. Ruane, 535 F. App’x 84, 86
(3d Cir. 2013) (“[A] District Court may enjoin a pro se litigant from future filings so long as the
injunction complies with three requirements . . . ”); Danihel v. Off. of the President, No. 146880, 2015 WL 1954269, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2015), aff’d sub nom. Danihel v. Off. of
President, 640 F. App’x 185 (3d Cir. 2016) (enjoining a pro se plaintiff from “commencing any
new civil matters against the named Defendants that relates to the subject matter of this action”);
Jaye v. Shipp, No. 17-5257, 2018 WL 2278100, at *1 (D.N.J. May 18, 2018) (entering a prefiling injunction against a pro se litigant to prevent “abuse of the system and futile expense, as
Defendants are forced to repeatedly defend against ultimately frivolous lawsuits”).
A pre-filing injunction must meet three requirements: “(1) the litigant must be
continually abusing the judicial process; (2) the litigant must be given notice of the potential
injunction and an opportunity to oppose the court’s order; and (3) the injunction must be
narrowly tailored to fit the specific circumstances of the case.” Grossberger, 535 F. App’x at 86
(citing Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1038 (3d Cir. 1993)).
III.

DISCUSSION
All three requirements are satisfied here. As the Government notes, numerous courts

have dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims, yet Plaintiffs again file the same claims. Dismissal is not
enough.
Pre-filing injunctions that prohibit a plaintiff from relitigating claims are justified by
“[t]he interests of repose, finality of judgments, protection of defendants from unwarranted
harassment, and concern for maintaining order in the court’s dockets.” In re Oliver, 682 F.2d at

4

Case 2:21-cv-05018-RBS Document 32 Filed 05/06/22 Page 5 of 7

445. Plaintiffs’ conduct in various courts implicates each of these justifications. Furthermore,
no one “is entitled to abuse the judicial process.” In re Oliver, 682 F.2d at 446 (quoting
Hardwick v. Brinson, 523 F.2d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 1975)). See also In re McDonald, 489 U.S.
180, 184 (1989) (“Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or
frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s
responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of
justice.”).
Plaintiffs have continually abused the judicial process. See, e.g., Perlmutter, No. 142566, 2015 WL 4757183 at *1 (“After failing to receive the results they wanted in state court,
Plaintiffs are trying again before this Court.”); see also n. 1, supra. This Court and others have
warned Plaintiffs about their conduct, including the specific consequence of a pre-filing
injunction. (ECF No. 10 at 5; ECF No. 25.) See also Perlmutter et al. v. Varone et al., No.
2020-01609 (Ct. Com. Pl. Bucks county, Apr. 1, 2020). A Maryland state court has already
entered a pre-filing injunction against Plaintiffs. See Perlmutter v. Varone, No. 422551V, Doc.
No. 35 (Montgomery, Md. Circ. Ct. Sept. 22, 2016). Following the Government’s request, we
entered an order to show cause and provided Plaintiffs an opportunity to oppose a pre-filing
injunction. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiffs’ opposition was unconvincing.
Much of Plaintiffs’ response is difficult to discern, but the central arguments—repeated
within this filing and all others—are as follows: Plaintiffs argue that the Government’s proposed
pre-filing injunction is based on a “false narrative of facts.” Plaintiffs dispute that they are
vexatious litigants, and they assert that the Government’s argument for a pre-filing injunction
relies on “void judgments” by courts in other jurisdictions. Those judgments are supposedly
void because they are the result of “fraud on the court,” though Plaintiffs offer nothing to support

5

Case 2:21-cv-05018-RBS Document 32 Filed 05/06/22 Page 6 of 7

their fraud argument. Plaintiffs also rehash their claims with respect to the administration of
decedent Joan Sutton’s will. These are precisely the allegations that have been heard and
decided by other courts. See, e.g., Perlmutter v. Varone (sic), No. 14-2566, 2015 WL 4757183
at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 11, 2015) (“Plaintiffs’ federal complaint is largely, if not entirely, a rehash of
the allegations presented in their previous state cases.”). Finally, Plaintiffs object to the
Varones’ attempt to collect a judgment against Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania state court.
Plaintiffs assert that the Court should deny the pre-filing injunction because there are
“new facts” at issue here. The Court has read Plaintiffs’ filings and cannot find anything new
beyond bare allegations of bribery directed at the most recent federal judge to hear their claims.
For example, Plaintiffs state that Defendants “Trina and Jeffrey Varone have bribed Judge
Denise M[.] Bowman causing her to ignore[e] the Rule of Law[.]” (Pls.’ Am. Compl. at 3.)
Other than this unsupported accusation, there is nothing new in this case. And to the extent
Plaintiffs take issue with the Varones’ attempt to collect a judgment against them in
Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs can press that argument in their pending appeal in Pennsylvania Superior
Court. See Perlmutter, D. v. Sutton Invest., No. 2440 EDA 2021 (filed on Nov. 23, 2021, and
docketed in the Superior Court on Dec. 7, 2021).
Finally, the injunction is narrowly tailored. It is restricted to the allegations that Plaintiffs
have litigated many times before federal and state courts—essentially disagreement over the
distribution of Joan Sutton’s estate, and the related, though baseless, allegations of bribery and
judicial corruption. See Matter of Packer Ave. Associates, 884 F.2d at 745, 748-49 (finding that
an injunction tailored to claims that have been “fully litigated and decided” was appropriate); see
also Danihel, 640 F. App’x at 190-91 (finding a pre-filing injunction narrowly tailored when it
was restricted to the subject matter of the present case and the same defendants). Here, the pre-

6

Case 2:21-cv-05018-RBS Document 32 Filed 05/06/22 Page 7 of 7

filing injunction is narrowly tailored to claims that have been fully litigated and decided. It is
also limited to the same Defendants that Plaintiffs have repeatedly dragged into court.
Furthermore, a nationwide injunction is appropriate because Plaintiffs have filed frivolous suits
in multiple districts. See, e.g., Day v. Toner, 549 F. App’x 66, 67 (3d Cir. 2014) (affirming a
nationwide pre-filing injunction against a pro se litigant who “ha[d] a history of vexatious and
abusive litigation,” and who filed suit in the District of Delaware “in an apparent attempt to
avoid sanctions imposed against him by the Middle District of Florida”). Like the vexatious
litigant in Day, Plaintiffs filed in this Court one month after a federal district court in Maryland
warned of a pre-filing injunction. Perlmutter, No. 19-cv-3402, ECF No. 56 at 2. Plaintiffs’
disregard for past judicial admonitions necessitates this nationwide pre-filing injunction.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion for Pre-Filing Injunction is granted

as to all Defendants. An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ R. Barclay Surrick
R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

7